Illusory Correlations and Control Across the Psychosis Continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has recently been proposed that individuals with delusions may be hypersalient to evidence-hypothesis matches, which may contribute to the formation and the maintenance of delusions. However, empirical support for the construct is limited. Using cognitive tasks designed to elicit the illusory correlation bias (i.e., perception of a correlation in which none actually exists) and the illusion of control bias (i.e., overestimation of one's personal influence over an outcome), the current article investigates the possibility that individuals with delusions are hypersalient to evidence-hypothesis matches. It was hypothesized that this hypersalience may increase a person's propensity to rely on such illusory correlations and estimates of control. A total of 75 participants (25 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia with a history of delusions, 25 nonclinical participants with delusion proneness, and 25 controls without delusion proneness) completed computerized versions of the "fertilizer" illusory correlation task developed by Kao and Wasserman (J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 19:1363-1386; 1993) and the "light-onset" illusion of control task created by Alloy and Abramson (J Exp Psychol Gen 108:441-485; 1979). The results across both tasks showed that the participants with schizophrenia were more susceptible than the nonclinical groups to illusory correlations (i.e., higher estimates of covariation between unrelated events) and illusions of control (i.e., higher estimates of control and perceived connection between the responses and the outcome). These results suggest that delusional ideation is linked to a hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches. The theoretical implications of this cognitive mechanism on the formation and the maintenance of delusions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".